## Source: PSS vol. 31

### 1. Protocol Record

Comrades, I find myself obliged, on the question of the current moment, its assessment, to undertake an extraordinarily broad theme, which, as far as I can judge, divides into three parts: first, the assessment of the political situation properly speaking among us, in Russia, the relationship to the government and the created dual power; second, the relationship to the war; and third, the international situation that has arisen in the workers' movement, which has placed it, if we speak of a worldwide scale, directly before socialist revolution.

I think I shall have to dwell only briefly on certain points. On the other hand, I intend to present you with a draft resolution on all these questions, but with the caveat that in view of the extreme shortage of resources on our part, as well as in view of the political crisis that has arisen here in Petrograd, we were unable not only to discuss the resolution but also to communicate it in good time to the localities. Thus, I repeat, these are only preliminary drafts, facilitating the work in commission and allowing it to concentrate on certain most essential questions.

I begin with the first question. If I am not mistaken, the Moscow Conference adopted the same resolution as the Petrograd city-wide [conference]. (Voices from the floor: "With amendments.") I have not seen these amendments and cannot judge. But since the Petrograd resolution was printed in *Pravda*, then, if there are no objections, I can consider it known to everyone. This resolution I present as a draft to the present All-Russian Conference.

The majority of the parties of the petty-bourgeois bloc, which reigns in the Petrograd Soviet, represents our policy, in contrast to theirs, as a policy of precipitate steps. Our policy is distinguished by the fact that we demand, first and foremost, a precise class characterization of what is occurring. The fundamental sin of the petty-bourgeois bloc consists in the fact that it obscures from the people the truth about the class character of the government with phrases.

If the Moscow comrades have amendments, they could read them now[144].

(Reads the resolution of the Petrograd City-Wide Conference on the attitude toward the Provisional Government.)

"Recognizing:

1) that the Provisional Government by its class character is an organ of the dominion of landowners and the bourgeoisie;

2) that it and the classes it represents are inseparably linked economically and politically with Russian and Anglo-French imperialism;

3) that even its announced program it implements only incompletely and only under the pressure of the revolutionary proletariat and, in part, the petty bourgeoisie;

4) that organizing forces of bourgeois and landlord counter-revolution, sheltering behind the banner of the Provisional Government, with manifest connivance on the part of the latter, have already begun an attack against revolutionary democracy;

5) that the Provisional Government delays the appointment of elections to the Constituent Assembly, impedes the universal arming of the people, opposes the transfer of all land into the hands of the people, imposes upon it a landlord method of solving the agrarian question, retards the introduction of an eight-hour working day, permits counter-revolutionary agitation (Guchkov and Co.) in the army, organizes the upper echelons of the army command against soldiers, etc…"

I have read the first part of the resolution containing the class characterization of the Provisional Government. Disagreements with the resolution of the Moscow comrades, insofar as one can judge from the text of the resolution alone, hardly exist in essentials, but the general characterization of the government as counter-revolutionary, I would consider incorrect. If we speak generally, one must clarify what revolution we are talking about. From the point of view of a bourgeois revolution, this cannot be said, since it has already ended. From the point of view of a proletarian-peasant [revolution]—to speak thus is premature, since one cannot be certain that the peasants will necessarily go further than the bourgeoisie, and to express one's confidence in the peasantry, especially now, when it has turned toward imperialism and defensism, that is, to support for the war, is, in my opinion, unfounded. And now it has entered into a whole series of agreements with the Cadets. Therefore, I consider this point of the resolution of the Moscow comrades politically incorrect. We want the peasantry to go further than the bourgeoisie, to take the land from the landlords, but now nothing can be said definitively about its future behavior.

We carefully avoid the words "revolutionary democracy." When it is a question of the government's attack, then one can speak of this, but now this phrase obscures maximum deception, because it is very difficult to divide the classes which in this chaos have merged. Our task is to liberate those who are lagging behind. For us Soviets are important not as a form; for us it is important what classes these Soviets represent. Therefore, prolonged work is necessary to clarify proletarian consciousness…

(Continues reading the resolution.)

"…6) that at the same time this government relies at present on the confidence and, to a certain degree, on direct agreement with the Petrograd Soviet of R. and S. D., which now unites an obvious majority of workers and soldiers, that is, of peasants;

7) that each step of the Provisional Government, both in the sphere of foreign and internal policy, will open the eyes not only of the proletarians of city and country and semi-proletarians, but also of broad strata of petty bourgeoisie to the true character of this government;

the conference resolves that:

1) for the transfer of all state power into the hands of the Soviets of R. and S. D. or other organs directly expressing the will of the people, prolonged work is necessary to clarify class proletarian consciousness and the rallying of proletarians of city and country against the vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, since only such work serves as a genuine guarantee of the successful forward movement of all the revolutionary people;

2) that for such activity comprehensive work is necessary within the Soviets of R. and S. D., increasing their number, strengthening their force, rallying within them proletarian internationalist groups of our party;

3) intensified organization of our s.d. forces in order to conduct the new wave of revolutionary movement under the banner of revolutionary social-democracy."

Here is the crux of our entire policy. The petty bourgeoisie is now everywhere vacillating and obscures its vacillation with the phrase about revolutionary democracy, and we must counterpose a proletarian line to these vacillations. To tear it away through premature action is what counter-revolutionaries desire. Our tasks are the increase in the number of Soviets, the strengthening of their forces, the rallying of our party within them.

The Moscow comrades add control in the third point. This control is represented by Chkheidze, Steklov, Tsereteli and other leaders of the petty-bourgeois bloc. Control without power is the emptiest phrase. How will I control England? In order to control it, one must seize its fleet. I understand that an undeveloped mass of workers and soldiers can naively and unconsciously believe in control, but it is enough to think about the fundamental moments of control to understand that this faith—is a departure from the fundamental principles of class struggle. What is control? If I write a note or resolution, then they will write a counter-resolution. In order to control, one needs to have power. If this is incomprehensible to the broad mass of the petty-bourgeois bloc, we must have patience to explain it to them, but in no case must we tell them an untruth. And if I obscure this fundamental condition with control, I am telling an untruth and playing into the hands of capitalists and imperialists. – "Please, you control me, and I will have the guns. Be satisfied with control," they say. They know that it is now impossible to refuse the people. Without power, control is a petty-bourgeois phrase that retards the course and development of the Russian revolution. That is why I object to the third point of the Moscow comrades.

Regarding this peculiar interweaving of two powers, when the Provisional Government, not having power, guns, soldiers and armed masses in its hands, relies on the Soviets which, relying on promises for now, conduct a policy of supporting those promises—if you want to participate in this game, you will suffer a crash. Our task is not to participate in this game; we will continue the work of explaining to the proletariat the complete unsoundness of this policy, and each step of real life will show how right we are. We are now in the minority; the masses do not yet believe us. We shall be able to wait: they will come over to our side when the government shows itself to them. The government's vacillations can repel them from itself, and they will stream toward us, and, considering the correlation of forces, we will then say: our time has come.

Now I pass to the question of war, which in practice united us when we came out against the loan; the attitude toward which immediately showed before all eyes how the political forces divide. As *Rech'* wrote, everyone except "Unity" vacillates; the entire petty-bourgeois mass is for the loan with reservations. The capitalists make a sour face, with a smile put the resolution in their pocket and say: "you can talk, but we shall act nonetheless." Throughout the world everyone who now votes for the loan is called a social-chauvinist.

I will proceed directly to reading the resolution on war. It divides into three parts: 1) characterization of the war from the point of view of its class significance, 2) revolutionary defensism of the masses, which exists in no other country, and 3) how to end the war.

Many, including myself personally, have had occasion to speak, especially before soldiers, and I think that if one explains everything from a class point of view, then what is most unclear to them in our position is precisely how we wish to end the war, how we consider it possible to end it. In the broad masses there is a darkness of misunderstandings, a complete lack of comprehension of our position, therefore we must be most popular here.

(Reads the draft resolution on war.)

"The contemporary war, from the side of both groups of warring powers, is an imperialist war, that is, conducted by capitalists for dominion over the world, for the division of the spoils of capitalists, for profitable markets of finance and bank capital, for the stifling of weak nationalities.

The transition of state power in Russia from Nicholas II to the government of Guchkov, Lvov and others, to a government of landowners and capitalists, has not changed and could not change such class character and significance of the war on the part of Russia.

Especially clearly revealed has been the fact that the new government is conducting the same, such imperialist, that is, predatory, brigandish war, in the following circumstance: the new government not only failed to publish the secret treaties concluded by the former tsar, Nicholas II, with the capitalist governments of England, France, etc., but formally confirmed these treaties. This was done without consulting the people at all and with the obvious aim of deceiving them, for it is well-known that these secret treaties of the former tsar are thoroughly brigandish treaties, promising Russian capitalists the plundering of China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, etc.

Therefore the proletarian party can in no way support either the present war or the present government or its loans, whatever splendid words these loans may be called by, without breaking completely with internationalism, that is, with the fraternal solidarity of workers of all countries in the struggle against the yoke of capital.

The present government's promise to renounce annexations, that is, conquest of alien countries or the forcible retention within the borders of Russia of any nationalities, deserves no confidence whatsoever. For, in the first place, the capitalists, interwoven by thousands of threads of bank capital, Russian and Anglo-French, defending the interests of capital, cannot renounce annexations in this war without ceasing to be capitalists, without renouncing profit on billions invested in loans, concessions, military enterprises, etc. In the second place, the new government, having renounced annexations in order to deceive the people, announced through Milyukov on April 9, 1917 in Moscow that it does not renounce annexations. In the third place, as *Delo Naroda*, the newspaper in which minister Kerensky participates, exposed, Milyukov did not even forward abroad his statement about renouncing annexations.

Warning the people against empty promises of capitalists, the conference therefore declares that one must strictly distinguish between renouncing annexations in words and renouncing annexations in fact, that is, immediate publication of all secret, predatory treaties, of all acts of foreign policy, and immediate commencement of the most complete liberation of all nationalities that the capitalist class oppresses or forcibly binds to Russia or keeps in a position of inequality, continuing the shameful policy of the former tsar Nicholas II."

The second half of this part of the resolution speaks of the promises which the government makes. Perhaps for a Marxist this part would be superfluous, but for the people it is important. Therefore it is necessary to add why we do not believe these promises, why we must not trust the government. The present government's promises to renounce imperialist policy deserve no confidence whatsoever. Here our line must consist not in pointing out that we demand publication of treaties from the government. That would be an illusion. To demand this of a capitalist government is the same as if we demanded the exposure of commercial frauds. If we say that one must renounce annexations and contributions, then we must indicate how this is to be done; and if we are asked who will do this, we will say that this is, in essence, a revolutionary step, and only the revolutionary proletariat can take such a step. Otherwise these will be merely empty promises, wishes with which capitalists lead the people around by the nose.

(Continues reading the draft resolution.)

"The so-called 'revolutionary defensism,' which has now seized almost all populist parties in Russia (People's Socialists, Trudoviki, Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the opportunist party of s.d. Mensheviks (OK, Chkheidze, Tsereteli and others), as well as the majority of non-partisan revolutionaries, represents, from the point of view of its class significance, on the one hand, the interests and point of view of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors, well-to-do peasants, who, like capitalists, extract profits from violence against weak nationalities,—and on the other hand, is a result of the deception of the masses by capitalists, who do not publish secret treaties and make do with promises and empty talk.

Very broad masses of 'revolutionary defenders' must be recognized as acting in good faith, that is, really not wishing annexations, conquests, violence against weak peoples, really striving for a democratic, non-violent peace between all warring countries. This must be recognized because the class position of proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country (that is, people living wholly or partly by the sale of their labor-power to capitalists) makes these classes uninterested in capitalist profits.

Therefore, while recognizing absolutely impermissible and signifying in fact a complete break with internationalism and socialism any concessions to 'revolutionary defensism,' the conference declares at the same time that so long as Russian capitalists and their Provisional Government limit themselves only to threats of violence against the people (for example, the mournfully-famous order of Guchkov, threatening punishment for the unauthorized removal of commanders by soldiers), so long as the capitalists have not proceeded to violence against freely organizing and freely changing and choosing all and any power through the Soviets of workers', soldiers', peasants', farm laborers' and other deputies,—so long our party will preach renunciation of violence generally, struggling against the profound and fatal error of 'revolutionary defensism' exclusively through methods of comradely persuasion, explanation of that truth, that the unconsciously trusting attitude of the broad masses toward the capitalist government, the worst enemies of peace and socialism, is at the present moment in Russia the chief obstacle to the speedy ending of the war."

Part of the petty bourgeoisie is interested in this capitalist policy; there is no doubt about this, and therefore it is impermissible for the proletarian party to place hopes now on a community of interests with the peasantry. We struggle in order for the peasantry to come over to our side, but it stands, to a certain degree, consciously on the side of the capitalists.

There is no doubt that the proletariat and semi-proletariat are not interested in the war as a class. They are influenced by traditions and deception. They do not yet have political experience. Hence our task is prolonged explanation. We make them no slightest principled concessions, but toward them we cannot approach as we would toward social-chauvinists. These elements of the population were never socialists; they have no notion of socialism whatever; they are only beginning to awaken to political life. But their consciousness grows and broadens with extraordinary rapidity. One must know how to approach them with explanation, and this is the most difficult task, especially for a party which yesterday was still in the underground.

Some comrades have the thought: have we not renounced ourselves? After all, we used to propagandize the transformation of the imperialist war into civil war, and now we are speaking against ourselves. But in Russia the first civil war has ended; we are now passing to the second war—between imperialism and the armed people, and in this transitional period, while the armed force is with the soldiers, while Milyukov and Guchkov have not yet applied violence, this civil war transforms for us into a peaceful, prolonged and patient class propaganda. If we speak of civil war before people have understood its necessity, then we shall undoubtedly fall into Blanquism. We are for civil war, but only when it is conducted by a conscious class. One can overthrow someone known to the people as a violent man. But now there are no violent men; the guns and rifles are with the soldiers, not with the capitalists; capitalists are not taking power now by violence, but by deception, and to shout now about violence is nonsense. One must be able to stand at the point of view of Marxism, which says that this transformation of imperialist war into civil war is built on objective conditions, not subjective ones. We are for now renouncing this slogan, but only for now. The weapons are now with soldiers and workers, not with capitalists. So long as the government has not begun to use violence, we preach peacefully.

It would benefit the government if the first careless step toward action came from us; it would be to their advantage. They feel a sense of rage because our party gave the slogan for a peaceful demonstration. To the petty bourgeoisie, which is now waiting and seeing, we must not surrender one iota of our principles. There is no more dangerous error for a proletarian party than to build its tactics on subjective wishes where organization is needed. To say that we have the majority behind us—one cannot say this; in this case distrust, distrust and distrust are needed. To base proletarian tactics on this—means to kill it.

The third point concerns the question of how to end the war. The point of view of Marxists is known, but the difficulty is in how to convey it to the masses in the clearest form. We are not pacifists and cannot renounce revolutionary war. How does the latter differ from capitalist war? First of all in what class is interested in it and what policy the interested class conducts in this war… When appearing before the masses, one must give them concrete answers. So, the first question: how to distinguish revolutionary war from capitalist war? The masses do not understand what the difference is, that here it is a question of class difference. We must not only speak theoretically, but we must practically show that we will then conduct a truly revolutionary war when power is in the hands of the proletariat. It seems to me that such a formulation of the question gives a more visible answer to the question of what kind of war this is and who is conducting it.

In *Pravda* a draft appeal to soldiers of all warring countries has been published[54]. We have information that fraternization is occurring at the front, but it is still semi-spontaneous. What fraternization lacks is clear political thought. The soldiers have instinctively felt that one must act from below; the class instinct of revolutionarily-inclined people has suggested to them that only here is the real path. But this is insufficient for revolution. We want to give a clear political answer. In order for the war to be ended, power must pass into the hands of the revolutionary class. I would propose, on behalf of the conference, to draw up an appeal to soldiers of all warring countries and to print this proclamation in all languages. If instead of all these current phrases about peace conferences, half of whose members are secret or direct agents of imperialist governments, we send out this appeal, then this will bring us to the goal a thousand times faster than all peace conferences. We do not wish to have dealings with German Plekhanovs. When we were traveling in a railroad car through Germany, these social-chauvinist gentlemen, German Plekhanovs, tried to get into our car, but we answered them that not a single socialist among them will enter us, and if they do, we won't let them out without a big scandal. If, for example, we were to admit Karl Liebknecht to us, then we would speak with him. When we publish an appeal to the working people of all countries and in it give our answer to the question of how to end the war, and when soldiers read our answer, giving a political way out of the war, then fraternization will take a gigantic step forward. This is necessary so that fraternization rises from the stage of instinctive horror at war and transitions into clear political consciousness of how to exit this war.

I will proceed to the third question, namely the assessment of the current moment from the point of view of the position of international workers' movement and the state of international capitalism. From the point of view of Marxism it is absurd to dwell on the position of only one country when speaking of imperialism, when capitalist countries are so closely linked with one another. And now, during the war, this link is immeasurably stronger. All humanity is bound up in one bloody mass, and there cannot be a way out for any one country alone. If there are more and less developed countries, the present war has bound them all together with such threads that the way out for one country alone appears impossible and absurd.

We all agree that power must be in the hands of Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies. But what can and must they do if power passes to them, that is, is in the hands of proletarians and semi-proletarians? A complex and difficult situation emerges. And if we speak of the transfer of power, then there appears a danger, one which played a great role in previous revolutions, namely: the revolutionary class takes state power into its hands and does not know what to do with it. There are examples in the history of revolutions of cases where precisely on this they suffered their downfall. Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies, which now cover all of Russia with their network, stand at the center of the entire revolution; however, they seem to me not sufficiently understood and studied by us. If they take power into their hands, then this will no longer be a state in the usual sense of the word. Such state power, having lasted long, has never existed in the world, but all the working movement of the world has approached it. It will be precisely a state of the type of the Paris Commune. Such power is a dictatorship, that is, relies not on law, not on the formal will of the majority, but directly, immediately on violence. Violence is an instrument of power. How then will the Soviets apply this power? Will they revert to the old administration through police, will they conduct administration through the old organs of power? In my opinion, they cannot do this, and in any case before them stands the immediate task of organizing a non-bourgeois state. I employed among Bolsheviks a comparison of this state with the Paris Commune in the sense that it destroyed the old organs of administration and replaced them completely with new, direct, immediate organs of workers. I am accused of employing at the present moment a word, the most frightening to capitalists, since they began to comment on it as a desire for the immediate introduction of socialism. But I employed it only in the sense of replacing the old organs with new, proletarian ones. Marx said that in this lies the greatest step forward of all world proletarian movement{145}. The question of the social tasks of the proletariat has tremendous practical significance for us, on the one hand, because we are now linked with all other countries, and it is impossible to break out of this tangle: either the proletariat will break out as a whole, or it will be choked; on the other hand, Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies are a fact. There is no doubt for anyone that they cover all of Russia, they are a power, and no other power can exist. If this is so, then we must clearly represent to ourselves how they can use this power. They say that this power is the same as in France and America, but nothing of the sort; such direct power does not exist there.

The resolution on the current moment divides into three parts. In the first is characterized the objective situation created by the imperialist war, into what situation all-world capitalism has fallen; in the second—the conditions of international proletarian movement; and in the third—the tasks of the Russian working class in the transfer of power into its hands. In the first part I formulate the conclusion that during the war capitalism has developed even more than before the war. It has already taken whole areas of production into its hands. Still in 1891, twenty-seven years ago, when the Germans adopted their Erfurt Program, Engels said that one could no longer interpret capitalism as lacking in planning{146}. This had already become obsolete: if there are trusts, then the lack of planning no longer exists. Especially in the twentieth century has the development of capitalism gone forward in gigantic strides, and the war has done what was not done in twenty-five years. The nationalization of industry has advanced not only in Germany but also in England. From monopoly in general they have passed to state monopoly. The objective situation shows that war has accelerated the development of capitalism, and it has moved forward from capitalism to imperialism, from monopoly to nationalization. All this has brought socialist revolution closer and has created objective conditions for it. Thus, socialist revolution has been brought closer by the course of the war.

England before the war was a country of maximum freedom, as is always pointed out by politicians of the Cadet party type. Freedom existed there because there was no revolutionary movement. War changed everything at once. A country in which one could not remember for decades an example of encroachments on the freedom of socialist press suddenly passed to purely tsarist censorship, and all prisons were filled with socialists. Capitalists there learned over centuries to govern the people without violence, and if they resorted to violence, that means they felt that the revolutionary movement is growing, that it could not be otherwise. When we pointed out that Liebknecht represents the masses, although he is alone and against him stand a hundred German Plekhanovs, we were told this is utopia, an illusion. Yet whoever has ever attended workers' assemblies abroad has seen that sympathy for Liebknecht among the masses is an undoubted fact. Even the most ardent opponents of his were forced to be cunning before the masses; and if not to pose as supporters, then in any case no one dared to speak against him. Now things have gone even further. Now we are dealing with mass strikes and we have fraternization at the front. In this respect to venture predictions would be the greatest error, but that sympathy for the International is growing and that revolutionary ferment is beginning in the German army—this nonetheless is a fact showing that revolution is ripening there.

Now, what are the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat? The chief shortcoming and chief error of all socialist reasoning is that the question is posed too generally—transition to socialism. Meanwhile one must speak of concrete steps and measures. Some of them have matured; others have not yet. We are now living through a transitional moment. We have clearly put forward forms which do not resemble the forms of bourgeois states: Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies—such a form of state which no state has and could have. This is such a form which represents the first steps toward socialism and is inevitable in the beginning of socialist society. This is the decisive fact. The Russian revolution has created Soviets. In no bourgeois country in the world do such state institutions exist or could exist, and no socialist revolution can operate with any power other than this. The Soviets of R. and S. D. must take power not to create the usual bourgeois republic or to immediately transition to socialism. This cannot be. For what then? They must take power in order to carry out the first concrete steps toward this transition, which can and must be carried out. Fear is the chief enemy in this respect. One must preach to the masses that these steps must be taken now, otherwise the power of the Soviets of R. and S. D. will be meaningless and will give nothing to the people.

I attempt to give an answer to the question: what concrete steps can we propose to the people without contradicting our Marxist convictions?

Why do we want power to pass into the hands of Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies?

The first measure which they must carry out is the nationalization of land. Everyone speaks of it. They say that this measure is the most utopian and yet everyone comes to it precisely because Russian land-holding is so tangled that there is no way out except to divide up all land and turn it into state property. One must abolish private property in land. This is the task that stands before us, because the majority of the people stand for it. We need the Soviets for this. It is impossible to carry out this measure with the old state officialdom.

Second measure. We cannot advocate "introducing" socialism—that would be the greatest absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small proprietors, who cannot even think of socialism. But what can they say against there being in each village a bank which would give them the opportunity to improve their husbandry? They can say nothing against this. We must propagandize these practical measures to the peasants and strengthen in them consciousness of the necessity for them.

It is another matter with the sugar syndicate; this is a fact. Here our proposal must be directly practical: these already matured syndicates must be transferred to the property of the state. If the Soviets want to take power, it is only for such purposes. They have no other reason to take it. The question stands thus: either further development of these Soviets or they will die an inglorious death, as happened with the Paris Commune. If a bourgeois republic is needed, the Cadets can arrange that.

I will end with reference to one speech which made the greatest impression on me. One coal miner gave a remarkable speech in which, without using a single bookish word, he told how they made their revolution. For them the question did not stand as to whether they would have a president, but he was interested in the question: when they took the mines, they needed to guard the ropes so that production would not stop. Then the question became one of bread, which they did not have, and they also reached an agreement regarding its acquisition. Here is the real program of revolution, not read from a book. Here is the real seizure of power on the spot.

The bourgeoisie has nowhere organized itself as much as in Petrograd, and the capitalists here hold power in their hands, but in the localities the peasants, without posing themselves any socialist plans, undertake purely practical measures. I think that this program of revolutionary movement alone correctly points to the real path of revolution. We are for approaching these measures with the greatest circumspection and caution, but we must only carry them out, we must only look forward in this direction, otherwise there is no way out. Otherwise the Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies will be dispersed and will die an inglorious death, and if power is really in the hands of the revolutionary proletariat, then only in order to move forward. And to move forward means to undertake concrete steps, not only to secure a way out of the war with words. Complete success of these steps is possible only through world revolution, if revolution strangles the war and if workers of all countries support it; therefore, the seizure of power is the sole concrete measure, the sole way out.

First published in 1921 in *Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov)*, vol. XIV, part II

Printed from the typescript of the protocol record

### 2. Newspaper Account

Comrade Lenin delivered a report on the current moment.

Outlining the position of the party on the question of dual power, pointing out that the forms of class struggle change depending on objective conditions, that the victory of the armed people over tsarism and the establishment—by fait accompli—of complete political freedom made superfluous and even harmful any other struggle with the class opponents of the proletariat except struggle through political education and socialist enlightenment of the masses (of course, insofar as capitalists themselves do not resort to violence against the majority), the speaker proceeded to consider the objective situation created by the war both here and in the West.

All humanity is bound up in one bloody tangle and there is no way out for any one country alone. It is impossible to end the war by the one-sided refusal of soldiers of any of the warring sides to continue it. The way out lies in the transfer of power from the hands of imperialist bourgeoisie into the hands of the proletariat and semi-proletarian strata adjoining it by their class position.

Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies, increasingly expanding their network across all of Russia, represent a new peculiar organization of state power, at least in embryo. These organizations are essentially distinguished from all those that have existed heretofore and in no way are suitable for the organization of bourgeois institutions, for the establishment of a bourgeois parliamentary republic with a permanent army, police and officialdom.

Now power is directly in the hands of the organized and armed people. The instruments of force are at the disposal of the majority. The government persists through the unconsciously trusting attitude toward it of this majority. Therefore, the task of the day is work of enlightenment, explanation of the necessity of the transfer of power into the hands of the revolutionary class, attraction of the masses to the side of revolutionary social-democracy.

If Soviets of workers, soldiers, peasants and farm laborers' deputies become a power, they will apply it in a completely different way than it is applied by the ruling classes. Transition to concrete measures is inevitable, ones prepared by the development of capitalism and corresponding to the interests of the majority of the population—in Russia with overwhelming predominance of petty bourgeoisie.

Socialist revolution, growing on the West, is not directly on the agenda in Russia, but we have already entered into a transitional state toward it. Soviets of workers, soldiers, etc. deputies are the organization of power with which socialist revolution will have to operate. Nothing like them exists in the West.

Hence our task of their strengthening. Hence the concrete tasks of the Soviet of workers and other deputies: 1) nationalization of land (seizure from private property of the principal instrument of production)—the peasants demand this; 2) the merger of private banks into one all-state bank, nationalization of branches of production united in syndicates; 3) introduction of universal labor duty.

If the Soviets of workers, soldiers, peasants and farm laborers' deputies refuse to fulfill these tasks, then their fall is inevitable